5 ms·

Every international body had checked, and confirmed that Iran had no intention of building nuclear weapons. Even to this day. Even after what Israel and US did.

Every international body had checked, and confirmed that Iran had no intention of building nuclear weapons. Even to this day. Even after what Israel and US did. Netanyahu has been saying Iran in minutes away from building nuclear weapons since early 2010s. Never mind those facts. Let's say they are building weapons. What gives the US the right to build enough nuclear weapons that they could destroy the world multiple times over, but Iran cannot? Why is the US funding terrorist groups, but Iran cannot? Just cos they're the big bad boogeyman? Don't you think it'd be better to normalise relationship with them so that they become friendly? So that even if they are building weapons, they wouldn't use it against us because they're allies?

arolihas 1y ago
Israel has been peddling that lie for 40 years now
1234letshaveatw 1y ago
No intention huh? Maybe you think the underground bunkers are for funsies. That is the silliest thing I have heard today. Congratulations.
- figmert 1y ago
  Ignore the rest of what wrote, and preemptively call facts silly. I'm sure you're more familiar with the matter than IAEA. Heck, even Tulsi Gabbard, the US intelligence director initially said they were not building nuclear weapons, until she changed her tune after Trump probably barked at her.
  - 1234letshaveatw 1y ago
    interesting that you reference the IAEA- do you know if they estimate to what extent Iran enriches their uranium stockpile?
    - figmert 1y ago
      So they can't build nuclear energy to power their infrastructure?
      - WillPostForFood 1y ago
        For power, uranium needs to be 3-5% enrichment, medical applications about 20%, and weapons will be 95%. The IAEA confirmed in May 2025 that Iran's had a stockpile of over 400kg of 60% enriched uranium. That's not enrichment for power. They had a stockpile at 20% in 2015 when the JCPOA was made, that was also well over what was needed for power.
- catlover76 1y ago
  [dead]
- code_for_monkey 1y ago
  who are we going to believe, international nuclear warhead investigators or your gut impulse?
rangestransform 1y ago
> What gives the US the right to build enough nuclear weapons that they could destroy the world multiple times over, but Iran cannot? Already having nuclear weapons, being a superpower and the center of the post-WW2 and post-Cold-War world, being able to fight 2 ground wars simultaneously, etc. The relationships between countries is governed by nothing other than might makes right, and any seemingly altruistic cooperation between the hegemon and its lessers only occurs because the hegemon benefits more.
johnisgood 1y ago
... and on top remember Iraq's alleged "weapons of massive destruction (WMD)"?
- breppp 1y ago
  You are of course aware that Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran and the Kurds killing thousands of people
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - figmert 1y ago
    Hi I'm Kurdish. I'm 100% aware, heck my mother still cries in front of me remembein some of the horrors she saw. I'm also aware that we, the Kurds, have arguably benefited the most from that war. But that does not negate the fact that the US lied about Saddam having WMDs.
    - breppp 1y ago
      A New York Times investigation by C.J. Chivers revealed that the dismantlement of Iraq’s CW program was not as clear-cut as originally thought. The investigation revealed that approximately 5,000 chemical warheads, shells, or aviation bombs were recovered following the 2003 Iraq war. [15] Although all of these munitions were produced before 1991, they did pose serious hazards; at least 17 American soldiers and seven Iraqi police officers were exposed to CW agents. [16] A subsequent investigation by Chivers and Eric Schmitt revealed a major CIA-run effort, Operation Avarice, to purchase old chemical weapons that were on the Iraqi black market. The program purchased and destroyed over 400 Borak rockets, many of which contained sarin. [17] https://www.nti.org/analysis/articles/iraq-chemical/ https://www.nti.org/analysis/articles/iraq-chemical/
      - johnisgood 1y ago
        Gotta save face so they could say the war was justified. No news here. I will never know the truth, and nor will you.
miningape 1y ago
[flagged]
- figmert 1y ago
  Is the US government is so much more stable than Iran's? The US has been directly or indirectly involved in all conflict in the middle east in the past few decades, and the instability in the region is due to the US's failed foreign policy. Maybe the US should stop pretending they know what they're doing. The US can't keep domestic terrorism at bay, why are they trying in a foreign setting?
  - miningape 1y ago
    Yeah, I’ll take my chances with the global hegemon that has reigned over a historically unprecedented global peace. (Although I'd prefer we all did like South Africa and decomission our arsenals) And yeah, the US should get out of the Middle East - we need to stop pretending is that sharia-law is compatible with western liberal democracies*. * This IMO is the socio-cultural reason for the Middle East's instability following the US’s interventions - and why similar interventions had more success elsewhere.
  - true_religion 1y ago
    Because they don't want foreign opponents at a time when they're having trouble keeping their house in order? Also, speaking frankly, there's an implications that people don't want Iran to have nuclear weapons because it's a Muslim country. This is false. It would be far palatable for Saudi Arabia or the UAE to develop nuclear arms because even though neither country is 'Christian' or 'democratic', they are at least allies.
- YC837264872364 1y ago
  > So unstable, theocratic, dictatorships under sharia-law [1] should have access to nuclear weapons? Because it's "fair"? Ironically, this statement could apply to Pakistan, which has had nuclear weapons since 1998 and yet has never used them. How strange! According to Western leadership, all Muslims are supposed to be barbarian religious fanatics who want a worldwide nuclear holocaust! Iran having a nuclear weapon would make the Middle East and the world a much safer place - if Ukraine had not disposed of their nuclear weapons in the 1990s, there would be no war happening right now! Possession of nuclear weapons is the only way for a country to guarantee its own sovereignty, which is something America and its coalition do not want for Iran - they want a weak puppet like the Shah who will let Exxonmobil come in and take all their oil revenue for themselves.
drnick1 1y ago
"Every international body had checked, and confirmed that Iran had no intention of building nuclear weapons." That's obviously nonsense. Why would the Iranians build secret underground facilities to refine uranium if it wasn't for building nuclear weapons? An oil-rich country does not need civilian nuclear power. Even if they wanted nuclear reactors, they could make a deal with the U.S. and buy the fuel rods in exchange for oil.
- lstodd 1y ago
  There's Rosatom project in Bushehr, unit 1 operational and talks about building more. Iran's nuclear program is definitely not about power generation.

arolihas 1y ago

Israel has been peddling that lie for 40 years now

1234letshaveatw 1y ago

No intention huh? Maybe you think the underground bunkers are for funsies. That is the silliest thing I have heard today. Congratulations.

figmert 1y ago
Ignore the rest of what wrote, and preemptively call facts silly. I'm sure you're more familiar with the matter than IAEA. Heck, even Tulsi Gabbard, the US intelligence director initially said they were not building nuclear weapons, until she changed her tune after Trump probably barked at her.
- 1234letshaveatw 1y ago
  interesting that you reference the IAEA- do you know if they estimate to what extent Iran enriches their uranium stockpile?
  - figmert 1y ago
    So they can't build nuclear energy to power their infrastructure?
    - WillPostForFood 1y ago
      For power, uranium needs to be 3-5% enrichment, medical applications about 20%, and weapons will be 95%. The IAEA confirmed in May 2025 that Iran's had a stockpile of over 400kg of 60% enriched uranium. That's not enrichment for power. They had a stockpile at 20% in 2015 when the JCPOA was made, that was also well over what was needed for power.
catlover76 1y ago
[dead]
code_for_monkey 1y ago
who are we going to believe, international nuclear warhead investigators or your gut impulse?

rangestransform 1y ago

> What gives the US the right to build enough nuclear weapons that they could destroy the world multiple times over, but Iran cannot? Already having nuclear weapons, being a superpower and the center of the post-WW2 and post-Cold-War world, being able to fight 2 ground wars simultaneously, etc. The relationships between countries is governed by nothing other than might makes right, and any seemingly altruistic cooperation between the hegemon and its lessers only occurs because the hegemon benefits more.

johnisgood 1y ago

... and on top remember Iraq's alleged "weapons of massive destruction (WMD)"?

breppp 1y ago
You are of course aware that Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran and the Kurds killing thousands of people
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- figmert 1y ago
  Hi I'm Kurdish. I'm 100% aware, heck my mother still cries in front of me remembein some of the horrors she saw. I'm also aware that we, the Kurds, have arguably benefited the most from that war. But that does not negate the fact that the US lied about Saddam having WMDs.
  - breppp 1y ago
    A New York Times investigation by C.J. Chivers revealed that the dismantlement of Iraq’s CW program was not as clear-cut as originally thought. The investigation revealed that approximately 5,000 chemical warheads, shells, or aviation bombs were recovered following the 2003 Iraq war. [15] Although all of these munitions were produced before 1991, they did pose serious hazards; at least 17 American soldiers and seven Iraqi police officers were exposed to CW agents. [16] A subsequent investigation by Chivers and Eric Schmitt revealed a major CIA-run effort, Operation Avarice, to purchase old chemical weapons that were on the Iraqi black market. The program purchased and destroyed over 400 Borak rockets, many of which contained sarin. [17] https://www.nti.org/analysis/articles/iraq-chemical/ https://www.nti.org/analysis/articles/iraq-chemical/
    - johnisgood 1y ago
      Gotta save face so they could say the war was justified. No news here. I will never know the truth, and nor will you.

miningape 1y ago

[flagged]

figmert 1y ago
Is the US government is so much more stable than Iran's? The US has been directly or indirectly involved in all conflict in the middle east in the past few decades, and the instability in the region is due to the US's failed foreign policy. Maybe the US should stop pretending they know what they're doing. The US can't keep domestic terrorism at bay, why are they trying in a foreign setting?
- miningape 1y ago
  Yeah, I’ll take my chances with the global hegemon that has reigned over a historically unprecedented global peace. (Although I'd prefer we all did like South Africa and decomission our arsenals) And yeah, the US should get out of the Middle East - we need to stop pretending is that sharia-law is compatible with western liberal democracies*. * This IMO is the socio-cultural reason for the Middle East's instability following the US’s interventions - and why similar interventions had more success elsewhere.
- true_religion 1y ago
  Because they don't want foreign opponents at a time when they're having trouble keeping their house in order? Also, speaking frankly, there's an implications that people don't want Iran to have nuclear weapons because it's a Muslim country. This is false. It would be far palatable for Saudi Arabia or the UAE to develop nuclear arms because even though neither country is 'Christian' or 'democratic', they are at least allies.
YC837264872364 1y ago
> So unstable, theocratic, dictatorships under sharia-law [1] should have access to nuclear weapons? Because it's "fair"? Ironically, this statement could apply to Pakistan, which has had nuclear weapons since 1998 and yet has never used them. How strange! According to Western leadership, all Muslims are supposed to be barbarian religious fanatics who want a worldwide nuclear holocaust! Iran having a nuclear weapon would make the Middle East and the world a much safer place - if Ukraine had not disposed of their nuclear weapons in the 1990s, there would be no war happening right now! Possession of nuclear weapons is the only way for a country to guarantee its own sovereignty, which is something America and its coalition do not want for Iran - they want a weak puppet like the Shah who will let Exxonmobil come in and take all their oil revenue for themselves.

drnick1 1y ago

"Every international body had checked, and confirmed that Iran had no intention of building nuclear weapons." That's obviously nonsense. Why would the Iranians build secret underground facilities to refine uranium if it wasn't for building nuclear weapons? An oil-rich country does not need civilian nuclear power. Even if they wanted nuclear reactors, they could make a deal with the U.S. and buy the fuel rods in exchange for oil.

lstodd 1y ago
There's Rosatom project in Bushehr, unit 1 operational and talks about building more. Iran's nuclear program is definitely not about power generation.